what would you do?
posted by ck | June 28, 2010
- Login or register to post comments
- Print this page
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Propeller
Reddit
Magnoliacom
Newsvine
Furl
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
Icerocketthere was one concept on my mind last night - civil courage.
apparently this term is used in different countries and settings in different ways. for me it means e.g. that when i see injustices, i will step in and try and act against.
dealing with the "dark years of history" (as they are being referred to) here in Munich, i often am asked how the people here and back then could let it all happen. and then i always ask back - what would you have done? and following that - what would you do? difficult questions to answer for most of us (unfortunately) - and yes, until the situation occurs one does not know how one would react, right? but i feel it is essential that every one of us thinks about it, contemplates it - so to be ready for when civil courage is needed, when it is needed to step in and take action.
a couple of things happened the past few days that make me wonder, and actually also make me feel sad - although, i still believe there is yet hope. let me elaborate:
i watched the world cup game Germany vs England yesterday afternoon, with my brother outside an Irish pub (in the beer garden). some of my friends were here, and there were a good few hundred fans of both sides there. one guy was already pretty drunk and yes quite obnoxious (hurling verbal abuse at the German fans etc) from the start, but apart from throwing words at them, he did not hit anyone, not smash anything - so no violence at all. he went inside for the second half and suddenly, shortly after the game was over (btw Germany won) we could see that THREE security guards (employed by the pub) were chasing him outside, not touching him, but three of them (2 of them were big/strong guys) moving him out, their facial expression i can hardly put in words - it was not a nice one.
now everyone was watching, the guy was chased by the security round the beergarden (he was still hurling abuses but did not harm anyone) and honestly, it got a bit too much and felt really unnecessary. so my brother stepped in - between the guy and the security. me next to him. talking to the security and telling them to let him go. he is harmless, what is the point. only to be told by security not to get involved.....not to get involved???...why the heck not? because it is great entertainment for all guests watching it? because security can show their strength and feel "big and strong"? i mean, one tiny guy, drunk, shouting swear words into the crowd but actually running from the security - a threat? and has to be contained? if so, why not call the police...as it is in the end their job (and guys who just get a t-shirt with security printed onto it have NO legal rights whatsoever!) - ah right, no grounds for calling the police, but ground for showing strength.
anyways, by the end - and because we would not budge and stay between the guy and security - the situation dissolved and we were told to leave. which we did after we finished our drinks (was the plan anyways) - dreadfully disappointed and saddened. by all and everyone. a) as no one else stepped in (there were a few hundred people there) and b) afterwards people would come up to us, discuss the issue with us, tell us to calm down (right!) and some agreeing with us that security has no right, and freedom of speech, opinion etc should still be one of the first principles in a society - but where were they during it all, why did no one else step up?
similar thing happened to me a few days earlier, i got into an argument with a manager at a bar, he insulted me (and out of a reflex i insulted him back), called security on me. they actually were cool, and kinda realised what happened. i was asked to step outside, which i did (although i could hang about) and people would come up to me afterwards, to tell me that it was a shame how the manager behaved etc - they had stood next to me, witnessing it all - but they did not step in.
it is not good enough to voice afterwards (when nothing happend - luckily) that this or that, your action or your argument was the right thing to do. it is not good enough! these are situations where it all was dissolved peacefully luckily. but we need the actions, we need civil courage - we need all to join in and fight injustices even if it starts on a small, local level - as if not, it might be just too late when we finally wake up and feel the need....talking bout it is not good enough! any situation, any injust moves by police (think what is happening in Toronto right now - police arresting peaceful demonstrators), "security" guards, anyone against someone else....
we need to step up and step in! i don't say we need to fight, i say we need to show courage!
and so i ask again...
what would you do?
Comments
Peaceful demonstration? Are
— Jun 29, 2010
Peaceful demonstration? Are you sure there is such a thing? Many men have paid with life or limb for what they thought they were sure of.
"I was once asked why I don't participate in anti-war demonstrations. I said that I will never do that, but as soon as you have a pro-peace rally, I'll be there." -Mother Teresa
When you go into a restaurant is there not an implied agreement that you will abide by the terms and conditions of the establishment from which you seek certain benefits and privileges?
-And that these agreements are among private parties capable of conducting themselves in the public to come to peaceful agreements.
-And that private parties have the right to secure their liabilities. In this case the restaurant hired security to limit said liabilities.
Could it be that the drunk belligerent became unable of conducting himself according to the terms and conditions of the establishment and proving his own incompetence by dishonoring the agreement?
Having no first hand knowledge I certainly can't say but I also venture to say that although you may have been a witness to some emergent events along the way. You didn't have any first hand knowledge either and your intervention as a third party interloper puts you not only in conflict but also dishonor. Did you have a security agreement with either the establishment or the drunk belligerent to represent either in this case?
The establishment operates with a license, insurance, and an indemnity bond. All to protect themselves from drunk idiots that refuse to take personal responsibility for their own actions and behavior. And security has to babysit full grown adults for a thankless living for hours on end saturated in stress hormones. Okay great you got the security to back down peacefully. Many people are very successful "winning" when they're at fault.
All human interaction is inherently contractual in nature. Anything that anyone says can be seen as an offer. At which time you can either fight, argue, and otherwise go to warfare, which is obviously counter to the position of peace. You can ignore, which can be interpreted as acceptance, but then this usually leads to argument and dispute. You can accept outright or you can conditionally accept if the original offer is unacceptable and conditional acceptance is still no guarantee of peace.
"Seek not abroad, turn back into thyself, for in the inner man dwells the truth..."
interesting take on it...
— Jun 30, 2010
...and actually i should have expected it. it's the "normal" way we should/do react still, is it not? i.e. with regards to "rights", "security agreement" etc.
i do get it, and yes this is how it is conducted. and in a world where we all would respect one another it should work.
my issue with it was, that the "show of force" was unnecessary. during my time in the hospitality industry i dealt with plenty of drunk people, tiny, big, girls or boys. and when it was only drunken behaviour it was "easy" to ask people to leave - all by myself. given if violence, fighting etc was involved it ended up being a different story.
the show of force and the watching of the audience, on one hand, is/was what concerned me. and through this the atmosphere that established itself around. from one second to the next. it got tense - and there was no need for that. with a bit of respect (you could argue both sides need to show it - and yes, that is true - but i also think if one side shows some the other just automatically can't turn from it either - what you give is what you get) it could have turned out differently.
premises may well have the right to restrict/decide who is allowed to stay/drink/whatever - however, when so, they need to also take responsibility i.e. manage it in the right way - all too often, premises will allow drunks to get more drinks, stick around until it gets out of hands - mainly in the name of making profit - but that's another discussion to be had.
in an ideal world we would not have these issues - as there would be mutual respect - and i mean not only the mgt of premises would respect their customers but also the customers would respect the "rules" if you so wish of the premises. actually i would rather say - people would respect one another. this is not the case now though is it? one always needs to be "right".
i did not mean to say that we were "right" i.e. on legal/insurance or what have you grounds. but on a human level - sorry, yes! it was the right thing to do! a show of force of the plenty against one person left "fighting" for themselves - this is not a right balance and needs to be counteracted. there was no need for THREE - it could have been done peacefully by just the manager as well - that shouting for security, that not bothering to talk, reason (and yes, you can even still do that with drunk people!) - it's the way we treat one another - and also - the way that many only keep watching...this is what bothers me.
these should have only been examples. the grander concept is the one of "civil courage" and the question (for what ever situation) - what would you do?
I see, I'm just carefully
— Jun 30, 2010
I see, I'm just carefully considering this word "civil". I'm all for individual inner courage. I'm just not so sure you can or should have courage for others. On one hand how is the world to learn if there is no example to learn from. On the other, how can any ever be expected to show courage if not given the opportunity?
Each individual experience is relative to the individual. I can not know what instigated the altercation all I know is it was between private parties. There may be a genuine need for 3rd party interveners, but they themselves in doing so are assuming foreign liabilities and should understand their own condition well enough bare the burden of any misfortune that should arise when doing so. Which, I'm not so sure one can do so long as they are a citizen which is subject to the terms and conditions of citizenship. Which really gives you no rights or protections to go around as a 3rd party intervener in other parties altercations.
Often times when one takes a position they're dedicated to it. But what happens when one takes a position? They automatically create a counter-position. Which can and often times does lead to controversy and dispute.
Threw your actions and conduct you arrived at a peaceful dispute resolution, but you could have just as easily go swept up by it and threw the citizenship clause been screwed or otherwise be making your way threw the penal system.
I suppose my biggest concern would be the exercise of personal responsibility on all fronts. The bar keeper serving drinks? Are they consciously aware that they are administering poisons to the patrons? Are the patrons themselves acting in accordance with personal responsibility by poisoning themselves, altering their own state of mind whereby placing themselves at risk and potentially others around them as well? And you knowing that the bar over-serves the patron still patronize the establishment whereby you enable such behavior to persist.
Where does it end? The State? The Distiller? The Candlestick-Maker?
Sure we could take a position, point fingers and place blame. After all we're always the virtuous ones aren't we?; -when we take positions?
See, to me this is paramount to warfare. It's what soldiers do on the field of battle. Competing for superior positions and preparing to attack and defend their positions. We then make positive statements, which are all lies. But that's probably another topic.
It is said that struggle is the law of growth. So anytime you have the opportunity to struggle, there is an opportunity for growth. You have to struggle with what you feel is right. Just as the drunk belligerent has to struggle with the bouncers, unless of course, you intervene. Now he must struggle with why you did that? Although in a drunken capacity this acknowledgment may escape him.
I'm really not prepared or motivated to say what's right or wrong, just what is.
I've actually worked nightclub security from 1994-1999. I've had a fair share of altercations too. Although being on the lighter end of the weight scale at 145# could never rely on my size as a show of force. However, sometimes there is no amount of talking which will bring peaceful resolution when minds are displaced by the alcohol. I, myself am allergic and/or hypersensitive and don't drink and had to deal with multiple drunk belligerents who were all twice my size. So perhaps there is a strange sort of balance in the universe.
"Seek not abroad, turn back into thyself, for in the inner man dwells the truth..."
maybe
— Jun 30, 2010
i did not use the concept, or explained the concept of "civil courage" in an appropriate way...
i have taken it from what it means to me...but here's the wikipedia summary on it:
"Civil courage (sometimes also referred to as "Social courage") is defined by many different standards. In general, the term is usually referred to when civilians stand up against something that is deemed unjust and evil, knowing that the consequences of their action might lead to their death, injury or some other form of significant harm.
In some countries (e.g. Brazil, France and Germany) civil courage is enforced by law; this means that if a crime is committed in public, the public is obliged to act, either by alerting the authorities, or by intervening in the conflict. If the crime is committed in a private environment, those who witness the crime must either report it to the authorities or attempt to stop it."
For me, being Austrian, it is to act upon and speak out against anything that is unjust, maybe even evil (well in my eyes) and yes, of course get involved when a "crime" (whatever that may be - it does not necessarily mean to be a murder, a robbery only!) is being committed but even bullying i feel is a crime...against respectul interacting with others...for example
i'm afraid i do not agree with the individuality issue in all of this - and it being something between 2 parties and the third should not get involved...
given the history across here, and my being engaged in making more sense - mainly for me - i can not see that any unjust moves should go without intervention. the looking away, the being swept up by the commonly-shared beliefs of so many, mainly however the apathy that was overwhelming so many - all of this makes me ask - what would i do? and makes me consider stepping up and stepping in whenever i feel that a situation, a way how people are being dealt with, is not right. and i don't mean right by law only - as i believe within us we all do know what is right, what is the only way for people to interact. i fully understand and know that we are not there yet, but i for sure will be one to take action when i see the need...
i take this away from drinking establishments and drunkeness or what have you...
i want to take this to another level - the one that really matters - the one, where you see any injustice, will you let it be done? hoping, wishing, almost knowing it will not effect you...not yet...or will you do something about it so that it for sure will not be able to have any effects on you, your loved ones...or anyone else around?
i leave you with this to ponder - a quote (there are many verisons of it as he changed it himself a few times) by Martin Niemöller:
"In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up."
Yes, well man must stop
— Jun 30, 2010
Yes, well man must stop being an object for which to be taken away.
"We of this mighty western Republic have to grapple with the dangers that spring from popular self-government tried on a scale incomparably vaster than ever before in the history of mankind, and from an abounding material prosperity greater also than anything which the world has hitherto seen.
As regards the first set of dangers, it behooves us to remember that men can never escape being governed. Either they must govern themselves or they must submit to being governed by others. If from lawlessness or fickleness, from folly or self-indulgence, they refuse to govern themselves, then most assuredly in the end they will have to be governed from the outside. They can prevent the need of government from without only by showing that they possess the power of government from within, a sovereign can not make excuses for his failures; a sovereign must accept the responsibility for the exercise of the power that inheres in him, and where, as is true in our Republic, the people are sovereign, then the people must show a sober understanding and a sane and steadfast purpose if they are to preserve that orderly liberty upon which as a foundation every republic must rest." -Theodore Roosevelt
Jamestown Exposition April 26,1907
"Seek not abroad, turn back into thyself, for in the inner man dwells the truth..."
